BLUE STAR FOODS, INC., Council Bluffs, Iowa, April 6, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: It has come to our attention that Congress is again being pressured to enact needless and harmful packaging and labeling legislation. This bill (S. 985) would strike a devasting blow to the very roots of the capitalistic form of free enterprise. In addition, it would tend to destroy the individualism of private ventures. It appears that many facets of the bill are redundant, in that in some respects the bill merely duplicates provisions in existing law. Also, it appears that Senator Hart, among others, is completely ignoring the progressive voluntary programs of the food and canning industry that further supplement the broad protections assured consumers through existing law. In public testimony given by the Chairman of FTC and FDA, it was made clear that existing laws, if diligently enforced, afford protection against most, if not all, of the major complaints. It is our understanding that at present there are 33 Federal agencies and 135 Federal programs, at a cost of $953 million, now in effect to protect American consumers. There are many other arguments against this bill, such as it would increase prices; curtail employment in the food and canning industry; deny consumers of new, better, and a greater variety of products; and lay another milestone in the road to Government control of private business. Your aggressive opposition to this bill is solicited. Very truly yours, WILLIAM R. KAPLAN, Secretary-Treasurer. THE CLIMALENE Co., Canton, Ohio, April 6, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Commerce Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: In view of the fact that hearings on Senate bill 985, packaging and labeling, get underway April 27, the purpose of this letter is to express my company's vigorous opposition to a bill we feel will not only bring incalculable damage to grocery manufacturers and distributors, but ultimately to the consumer. Although proponents of the bill claim it is needed and wanted by the consumer, evidence at hand points strongly to the contrary. Reporting on a nationwide research study, Opinion Research Corp. informs us that most consumers interviewed think food manufacturers are doing an excellent job of packaging and reject the idea of changes. We believe the bill is unnecessary. The consumer is adequately protected through the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act which outlaws as misbranded any food whose labeling is false or misleading. The language of the bill is vague. Proposed regulations take the form of rigid standards that could deprive manufacturers of flexibility needed for competitive innovations and improvements in packaging. It is amazing to note that, while discriminatory practices in the food industry are illegal, and rightfully so, section 3(a) (5) of this bill is in fact discriminatory. This section prohibits cents-off and other price-advantage promotions, but permits retailers to place them upon package labels. While packaging is only one aspect of grocery manufacturing, no other single element is more important. It is the manufacturer's most important single advertisement and the one most widely circulated. Yet the most outstanding package cannot win repeat sales-the only criterion of successful business-unless the product meets the claims described by the package. But, put a good product in an outstanding package and manufacturing miracles are possible. For example, a small grocery manufacturer cannot compete with the giants in most areas of mass merchandising-saturation print or TV advertising or couponing. The same manufacturer, through ingenious packaging, can offset these disadvantages through superiority on the grocery shelf where Mrs. Consumer makes the fateful decision. Two years ago our company, now in its 58th business year, created a new package design for a long-established product that was distributed only in the central United States. The package proved to be so distinctive in its design and so practicable from the standpoint of consumer usage that national distribution was accomplished within a year. Today our product successfully competes again similar products made by much larger manufacturers. This would not have been possible unless management and its design personnel had complete freedom to innovate and, in the end, bring the consumer something better. Some of the provisions of Senate bill 985 strongly imply that such freedom could be drastically curtailed if the bill became law. All the evidence our company can bring to bear indicates the bill is not needed, not wanted by the consumers it is designed to "protect," and would impose unnecessary restrictions on an industry that has grown to $80 billion through continuous improvement in products and packaging. We respectfully request that this statement be made a part of the record. Cordially, R. H. MARRIOTT, Vice President in Charge of Sales and Advertising. PACIFIC HAWAIIAN PRODUCTS CO., Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: May I take this opportunity to express my opposition to the Hart packaging bill (S. 985) ? The governmental controls this bill authorizes are not only unnecessary, but will place restrictive limits on packaging design, which will tend to increase, rather than reduce, prices. Rigid regulatory control of package sizes, shapes, and volumes will slow down packaging development and increase manufacturing costs through heavier capital outlays in machinery and equipment. The result will be higher prices to the consumer. As chief executive officer of a company that has prospered by providing the housewife with quality products, attractively packaged and reasonably priced, I cannot believe that consumer intelligence has dropped so low, nor that industry's ethics have deteriorated to the point that this type of legislation is necessary. Your opposition to this bill is earnestly solicited. Sincerely, Subject: The Hart packaging bill (S. 985). Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. REUBEN P. HUGHES, President. DULANY, FOODS, INC., Fruitland, Md., April 6, 1695. SIR: As a longstanding packer of frozen foods and canned foods who has been engaged in business for over 65 years and has been serving the American housewife for as long a period, we wish to register a protest to the above bill. We feel that it is a needless bill and in some respects the bill merely duplicates provisions in existing law. The Chairman of both the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration publicly testified that their agencies already possessed power to prevent false or misleading labeling in packaging where it occurs. We also feel that it is an extreme bill; other provisions of the bill go far beyond existing law by authorizing intensive Government control of package sizes and shapes without regard to deception and prohibiting cents-off label promotions altogether. For the consumer, the bill will tend to increase rather than decrease the prices of market-basket goods. Rigid regulation of package sizes, shapes, and volumes will slow down packaging progress, require heavier capital outlays in machinery and equipment, and raise prices at the retail level. On canned foods particularly, a requirement of net weights and even pounds or half pounds would cause incredible confusion and expense because of the difference in density of products which are now packed in a single size. In reality the bill is a package standardization bill which will limit the housewife's freedom in a range of choices and impair her ability to choose real values. It is a "smear industry" bill as far as we are concerned, because modern packaging is held up to ridicule, and the image of the consumer goods industry is slurred by intemperate charges of deliberate deception of the consumer. We earnestly request that you give consideration to the packers of long standing who have served the housewife and the public faithfully over a long period of time and that this bill will be defeated as one that goes far beyond regulation but is strictly a political football. Very truly yours, L. PETCHAFT, President. LIBBY, MCNEILL & LIBBY, Hartford, Wis., April 7, 1965. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committee, DEAR MR. MAGNUSON: My purpose in writing this letter is to ask for your cooperation in opposing bill S. 985 as relates to the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. Since the food industry is a very vital part of the apparent American people's life and economic structure, I feel it is important as a consumer and a member of the food industry, and in the interest of our company, its stockholders, employees, and customers that this bill be opposed. The following points I feel exemplify a need for opposing this bill: Almost every section of the bill duplicates existing provisions for controlling deceptive and dishonest labeling and packaging in the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and Federal Trade Commission Act. The bill would boomerang on consumers because it would increase total costs of market basket goods by necessitating substantial outlays of money for new packaging machinery and equipment. The effect of the bill would reduce governmental tax revenue through greater deductions for increased manufacturing costs. If there are violations of present adequate laws, the failure to enforce these laws is odd rationale for enacting new laws. Consumers will be deprived of new and better products to meet their changing needs if restrictive provisions become laws, whether in foods, cosmetics, soaps, detergents, or other household products. Any manufacturer who tries to trick the housewife into buying his product through deceptive labeling or packaging will soon be out of business. It is my honest opinion that the packaging laws as they exist provide adequate protection for the consumer in all matters of packaging. Very truly, Re: Hart packaging bill (S. 985) Washington, D.C. J. H. HOUCK, Plant Manager. S&W FINE FOODS, INC., DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: With full realization that you have been bombarded with pleas by pressure groups, both pro and con, on the subject proposed legislation, I feel compelled to urge strongly that you take all steps necessary to see that this bill is not passed for the following reasons: 1. The propaganda in support of this bill, primarily instigated by Government officials, has been principally a smear industry campaign. The innuendoes and half-truths that have been expressed by its proponents have done incalculable harm to the country's leading and most vital industry. The passage of this measure would add credence to the misrepresentations that have been made by some of your colleagues who appear to be preoccupied with the popular game of "saving the public"-not because the public is threatened, but because such a course appears to be politically rewarding. 2. One part of this double-pronged bill is entirely unnecessary, since it duplicates provisions in existing law which are sufficiently strong at the present time to prevent false or misleading labeling or packaging. This has been verified in public testimony by the Chairmen of both the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission. The second part goes far beyond existing law and is extreme by any standards. Depending on its administration, it would arbitrarily control package sizes, shapes, designs, and promotional devices without regard to the avowed purpose of preventing consumer deception. 3. The passage of the bill would add materially to packaging costs by attempting the impractical standardization of net weights regardless of product density. This would result in heavy capital outlays in packaging equipment, which costs must ultimately be passed on to the consumer. Further, it would tend to stifle innovations and package and product improvements which benefit the consumer. It would also limit the shopper's range of choice and add to the monotony of her shopping chore, particularly in food. No responsible leader in the food industry is in favor of deceptive packaging, nor will any of us contend that such examples cannot be found in the market today. We do contend, however, that adequate laws exist today to correct these few abuses without additional legislative actions which will further subject business to the whims of administrators of these proposed laws * * * a dangerous infringement on the free enterprise system. Our business is a volume business. We must rely on repeated purchases by the housewife in order to survive, so it is in our own interests to provide values that will satisfy her wishes. The shopper appreciates our ingenuity and our efforts to serve her. But she also has the recourse of her patronage and her own good judgment and will not tolerate being deceived or disappointed. You might ask the distaff side of your family when she last bought, for the second time, a package she considered deceptive. The remedy, then, is not in this stringent, uncalled-for legislation, but enforcement of current laws which are perfectly adequate. Sincerely, R. B. MACLEAN. THE MIAMI MARGARINE CO., Re S. 985, packaging and labeling bill. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MAGNUSON: If you happen to read this letter, am reasonably sure you will find the motive behind it is sincere. I say this because, as a margarine manufacturer, our packaging code is well regulated, and we would have little or no change to make to comply with most of the provisions of S. 985. The main reason we believe you should consider voting against the Hart bill is that it is not necessary in order to protect the American consumer. Quite frankly, the American housewife enjoys shopping in the modern grocery store, and she welcomes the many colorful packages and shapes and sizes which are available to her. We'll hazard a guess that if you ask your wife, or the person responsible for stocking the larder at home, you will find no more "protection" is needed. True, there are some manufacturers who are lax in quantity and quality, but these manufacturers are falling by the wayside every day, and the consumer is the one who is "voting" them out via her supermarket. It is our opinion that the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission are very effective in patrolling the food markets in behalf of the consumer, and that any more restraints will not only reduce choices to the consuming public, but will ultimately increase the costs. It is just as simple as that. Can appreciate the fact that it is always popular to carry the torch for the poor American consumer, but can also anticipate where it will be mighty unpopular to be in the limelight when the consumer begins complaining over merchandising changes and restrictions which S. 985 would bring about. Sincerely, J. P. WHITEHURST. RALSTON PURINA Co., Re S. 985. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, I want to take this opportunity to advise you of the opposition of Ralston Purina Co. to S. 985, better known as Senator Hart's truth in packaging bill. I will leave it to the lawyers to express the legal objections to this bill which carries statutory prohibitions which should be contained in regulations promulgated under a statute. Existing legislation adequately protects the consumer. The Federal Trade Commission Act and the Pure Food and Drug Act, as amended, with regulations promulgated thereunder, provide adequate protection both for the consumer and for business. The excellent records of the Federal Trade Commission and the Food and Drug Administration under statutes which they enforce speak for themselves. The acceptance of packaged foods by the American housewife is ample evidence that today's products are packaged in containers which both preserve cleanliness and inform the housewife of their contents. The growth in packaged foods is dramatic. For instance, the modern supermarket displays approximately 8,000 items and sizes. The Grocery Business Annual Report for 1964 indicates that in 1964, food stores will sell approximately 180 billion units, or nearly 1,000 units for each man, woman, and child in the United States. This volume of merchandise would not move through modern stores to discriminating purchasers if packages were misleading or improperly marked. There is much talk about the inability of the consumer to select competing products because of confusing promotional claims and alleged defects in packaging. The Colonial study which was published by Progressive Grocer, a trade publication of the grocery industry, clearly indicates that the American housewife is an extremely discriminating buyer. This report contains overwhelming proof that housewives carefully examine competitive products before making purchases. Of more direct concern to the food processing and packaging industry is the requirement of S. 985 that packages be uniform as to size and as to weight. At présent, package sizes are determined by packaging machinery. It would be extremely expensive for industry to convert packaging machinery so that competing products made by different manufacturers would be contained in the same size packages. These costs would, of necessity, be passed on to the consumer, which would result in higher prices for the same product. For Standardization of package sizes and weight fails to recognize the basic de mand of the consumer for different size packages of the same products. instance, our three principal dry cereals are contained in the same size package, but because of density, the contents of the packages have different net weights. Different package sizes are available for the convenience of the different sizes of family units. To prevent any dissatisfaction on the part of the housewife. our filling equipment is adjusted and regularly checked to be sure that packages are properly filled. The experience of industry and the growth in the sale of packaged foods indicates that the housewife is satisfied, and that she is getting fair value for her money. It is our suggestion that S. 983 would contribute nothing to the consZERDER; rather, that it would cause additional inconvenience and cost to industry wNd would be passed on to the consumer. For these reasons, we encourage yon and your committee to recommend that S. 985 not pass. Very truly yours. WARREN M. SHAPLESE LA CHOY Fee Propriers. Hon. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Chairman, Senate Commerce Committer, Washingt`m. D.C. PEAR SENATOR MACNUSON: As a private citizen and taxparen. I am agcont the truth in packaging bill (8. 985). I feel the packaging till is bad fie consumer because: 1. A Good Housekeeping magazine survey says 36 percent of the read labels and are informed. |